BigNumber12:It's depressing how eager much of the population has gotten when it comes to revoking rights they don't like, and the rights of people they don't like. And politicians are happy to indulge them. After all, who would want more restrictions on their personal power, when they could just be efficient and get shiat done and not have to worry about distractions like getting prosecuted?

And, every 4 to 8 years, rather than undoing the abuses of the previous Administration, the new Administration simply grabs the baton and continues the race towards ever greater government power.

I saw a interview with Sen Lindsey Graham last night and he was talking about how the FBI was aware of the older brother and his slide toward radical Islam. The Senator said "We need to figure out whether the FBI simply failed in their task, or if we need new laws to help the FBI stop these things before they happen".

I was all "fark you Lindsey Graham!!!" I farking KNEW this bombing was going to kick off a whole new round of congress shredding more of our rights, and right there we see that the Senators already have a plan in the works to do just that.

Cybernetic:The Southern Dandy: Cybernetic: JohnBigBootay: Cybernetic: Personally, I want that because I think he should be treated as an enemy combatant.

But he wasn't an enemy combatant. The dude moved here when he was like seven or eight years old. He was a US citizen who committed a crime on US soil and he should be tried as such. I mean we could do what you suggest but it would be rather pointless considering the mountains of evidence they have. he's going to be found guilty and after his sentencing never see the light of day again. All the rest of it is just emotional horseshiat that serves no constructive purpose.

I guess that depends on how you define "enemy combatant". There absolutely are segments of radical Islam that consider themselves to be at war with the United States. Should the fact that those people are not tied to a specific geopolitical entity upon which the United States can declare war determine whether or not they are enemy combatants? Or should it instead cause us to realize that the nature of modern conflict has evolved in part away from conflict between nation-states, and therefore reevaluate the definition of what causes a person to be recognized as a combatant?

Had the Boston bombing been perpetrated by agents of a foreign nation, it would be an act of war. Period.

Would it? It depends on whether the agents were acting in the agency of a foreign power, or if they were acting on their own. For example, what if a foreign diplomat was just trying to kill his wife's lover who he knew to be at the race, and he wanted to do it with a bomb. Is that an act of war? Or a murder?

Are you suggesting that the Tsarnaev brothers were just trying to kill Tamerlan's wife? Do you really think that their motive was anything other that political or ideological?

What was their motive, and what evidence do you have to support your assertion?

Cybernetic:Instead, the bombings were carried out by agents of an ideology that considers itself at war with the United States. IMHO (and others will disagree) that makes the bombing an act of war, and the perpetrators enemy combatants.

Meh. You could just as easily be describing the crazy plural marriage sect of the mormons who think it is their duty to 'bleed the beast' with welfare fraud. Or any number of nutty weekend secessionists who talk shiat about the govt at their plinking parties and occasional do something actually dangerous. Hell, half the damn tea party and almost the entire fark libertarian brigade considers itself at war with the united states. Idiotic idea on its face. Is Sheriff joe an enemy combatant? Donald trump?

Cybernetic:There are people who consider themselves to be at war with the United States, acting on behalf of a stateless ideological and political entity that will continue to carry out attacks like this at any opportunity. History has shown convincingly that treating those who act on behalf of that entity as criminals rather than enemy combatants is folly.

No, it has not. However, history has shown people would gladly destroy the Bill of Rights, because they are scared.

BigNumber12:It's depressing how eager much of the population has gotten when it comes to revoking rights they don't like, and the rights of people they don't like. And politicians are happy to indulge them. After all, who would want more restrictions on their personal power, when they could just be efficient and get shiat done and not have to worry about distractions like getting prosecuted?

And, every 4 to 8 years, rather than undoing the abuses of the previous Administration, the new Administration simply grabs the baton and continues the race towards ever greater government power.

The Southern Dandy:BigNumber12: It's depressing how eager much of the population has gotten when it comes to revoking rights they don't like, and the rights of people they don't like. And politicians are happy to indulge them. After all, who would want more restrictions on their personal power, when they could just be efficient and get shiat done and not have to worry about distractions like getting prosecuted?

And, every 4 to 8 years, rather than undoing the abuses of the previous Administration, the new Administration simply grabs the baton and continues the race towards ever greater government power.

I saw a interview with Sen Lindsey Graham last night and he was talking about how the FBI was aware of the older brother and his slide toward radical Islam. The Senator said "We need to figure out whether the FBI simply failed in their task, or if we need new laws to help the FBI stop these things before they happen".

I was all "fark you Lindsey Graham!!!" I farking KNEW this bombing was going to kick off a whole new round of congress shredding more of our rights, and right there we see that the Senators already have a plan in the works to do just that.

If he had said "better intelligence," or "more manpower," or even "more funding," instead of "new laws", I might agree with him. I seriously doubt that we need new laws.

If this is an intelligence failure--in the sense that we had data, but failed to connect the dots, or failed to act in time--then we need to identify the problems and fix them. If we were utterly blindsided, then that is an entirely different class of problem that needs to be addressed.

Graham's statement sounds like a politician who feels a need to "do something" so that he can tell his constituents that he "did something" during his next election cycle.

Cybernetic:I guess that depends on how you define "enemy combatant". There absolutely are segments of radical Islam that consider themselves to be at war with the United States. Should the fact that those people are not tied to a specific geopolitical entity upon which the United States can declare war determine whether or not they are enemy combatants? Or should it instead cause us to realize that the nature of modern conflict has evolved in part away from conflict between nation-states, and therefore reevaluate the definition of what causes a person to be recognized as a combatant?

Had the Boston bombing been perpetrated by agents of a foreign nation, it would be an act of war. Period. There would be no discussion or debate.

Instead, the bombings were carried out by agents of an ideology that considers itself at war with the United States. IMHO (and others will disagree) that makes the bombing an act of war, and the perpetrators enemy combatants.

This is certainly not "emotional horseshiat". This is recognizing a situation for what it is, and responding accordingly

Farking nonsense.These assholes were no soldiers in an army.Don't dignify them with the title "combatant".Don't call their crimes "acts of war" - they were the acts of douchebag domestic criminals.Period.

JohnBigBootay:Cybernetic: Instead, the bombings were carried out by agents of an ideology that considers itself at war with the United States. IMHO (and others will disagree) that makes the bombing an act of war, and the perpetrators enemy combatants.

Meh. You could just as easily be describing the crazy plural marriage sect of the mormons who think it is their duty to 'bleed the beast' with welfare fraud. Or any number of nutty weekend secessionists who talk shiat about the govt at their plinking parties and occasional do something actually dangerous. Hell, half the damn tea party and almost the entire fark libertarian brigade considers itself at war with the united states. Idiotic idea on its face. Is Sheriff joe an enemy combatant? Donald trump?

Wow. You consider those to be morally equivalent to killing innocent civilians with a bomb?

Cybernetic:Graham's statement sounds like a politician who feels a need to "do something" so that he can tell his constituents that he "did something" during his next election cycle.

But people eat that shiat up. They think with their emotions and demand all sorts of new laws to protect everyone from planes crashing into highrises and scary machine guns killing children. And they ram it down the public's throat with appeals to emotion, think-of-the-children, accusations of being a terrorist-lover, and plenty of other tricks / logical fallacies. Because "doing something is better than doing nothing" and "either like the new law, or you're obviously against making anything illegal and you should go to Somalia."

He should be tried as a Plutonian Martian and then forced to submit fecal samples and then eat the fecal samples and then the fecal-fecal samples collected for fecanalysis. And then we should strap one of several popular races' penises into his asshole because apparently that's considered a punishment in some circles of people who are fixed with non-white penises in asses and then we should make him live the rest of his life in solitary confinement until we execute him or not.

demaL-demaL-yeH:Cybernetic: I guess that depends on how you define "enemy combatant". There absolutely are segments of radical Islam that consider themselves to be at war with the United States. Should the fact that those people are not tied to a specific geopolitical entity upon which the United States can declare war determine whether or not they are enemy combatants? Or should it instead cause us to realize that the nature of modern conflict has evolved in part away from conflict between nation-states, and therefore reevaluate the definition of what causes a person to be recognized as a combatant?

Had the Boston bombing been perpetrated by agents of a foreign nation, it would be an act of war. Period. There would be no discussion or debate.

Instead, the bombings were carried out by agents of an ideology that considers itself at war with the United States. IMHO (and others will disagree) that makes the bombing an act of war, and the perpetrators enemy combatants.

This is certainly not "emotional horseshiat". This is recognizing a situation for what it is, and responding accordingly

Farking nonsense.These assholes were no soldiers in an army.Don't dignify them with the title "combatant".Don't call their crimes "acts of war" - they were the acts of douchebag domestic criminals.Period.

/Get your elbows off the table and chew before you swallow.

I suppose that we can agree to disagree on that point, seeing how neither of us has any input into the decision.

But where would you draw the line? At what point does an act committed on US soil cross the threshold where it is no longer a crime, but instead the action of an enemy combatant?

Cybernetic:But where would you draw the line? At what point does an act committed on US soil cross the threshold where it is no longer a crime, but instead the action of an enemy combatant?

There is no threshold or line to draw: You're conflating two very different concepts.

A crime is a crime when committed by US persons on US soil. Before "terroris*" got shoehorned into the criminal code, it was easy to see. It's only now that you're confused.

An act of war is an act of war, which is still, fortunately, very well defined in international law.Who constitutes a combatant - and who is a noncombatant - is also defined in international law, as well as who is a saboteur or spy.

demaL-demaL-yeH:World Traveling Navy Vet: Where else can you get three square meals a day, a roof over your head, free medical and dental, free education, and possibly free cable?

*AHEM*I'll give you a hint: Your fark handle.

That is true and you even get free vacation time in foreign ports, you just have to remember that it is voluntary to serve. I have been out of the military for many years now. Our tax money does go to paying for all our military forces although we don't pay them nearly enough for all the time spent in harm's way.

I have been working at the poverty level before and it isn't fun making choices like do I pay the mortgage and food, or the electric bill and food. That is why I have an issue with someone in jail not working, getting fed, clothed, housed, and medical when there are whole lot of people that have less than that on a daily basis.

With modern day forensics there should be very few innocents that actually goto jail these days. I know and understand that not all people deserve the death penalty and I also believe that many of our existing death row inmates should have their cases re-examined with current forensic technology to free those that were innocent and wrongly accused. I still maintain that a good working death penalty in the long run will lower overall violent crime rates because we prove that we kill those that kill.

Someone in the thread above mentioned that we no longer attempt to rehabilitate the criminals, our prisons are just a holding facility, and I agree with that. There are many in jail that could be rehabilitated if we were to try.

How can we as a nation stop building more jails, reduce the amount of inmates currently in jail, and give criminals pause to think of what will happen when they are caught? Tough question of which I know not the answer.

Everybody has an opinion on the choice of life or death but not one person has yet to comment on what we may do to make it better.

BigNumber12:Cybernetic: Graham's statement sounds like a politician who feels a need to "do something" so that he can tell his constituents that he "did something" during his next election cycle.

But people eat that shiat up. They think with their emotions and demand all sorts of new laws to protect everyone from planes crashing into highrises and scary machine guns killing children. And they ram it down the public's throat with appeals to emotion, think-of-the-children, accusations of being a terrorist-lover, and plenty of other tricks / logical fallacies. Because "doing something is better than doing nothing" and "either like the new law, or you're obviously against making anything illegal and you should go to Somalia."

Yes, people do eat it up, and the resulting laws are rarely pretty, or even effective. And they often end up making the problem worse, or having unforseen consequences that are worse than the problems that the law was meant to address. Daniel Patrick Moynihan called this phenomenon "iatrogenic government".

There seems to be some part of human nature that wants to believe that tragedy can be legislated out of existence, and when the tragedy is still fresh in people's minds, politicians use that impulse to pass legislation that wouldn't get through if cooler heads were to prevail.

World Traveling Navy Vet:How can we as a nation stop building more jails, reduce the amount of inmates currently in jail, and give criminals pause to think of what will happen when they are caught? Tough question of which I know not the answer.

Three thoughts:1. Ban all private, for-profit prisons. Imprisonment is strictly a government function.2. Legalize, regulate and tax marijuana, then release all nonviolent marijuana offenders.3. remove sentencing guidelines and truth in sentencing laws because they are unconstitutional interference with the judicial branch of government. Judges should be able to exercise judgment, for fark's sake.

Cybernetic:king_nacho: Cybernetic: JohnBigBootay: Cybernetic: If the oath of citizenship was taken with the intent of using the privileges of citizenship to aid in committing an act of terror on US soil, then wasn't the oath of citizenship taken fraudulently? And isn't the oath--and thus his citizenship--invalid on those grounds?

Why would you even want that in the first place?

Personally, I want that because I think he should be treated as an enemy combatant. If the government can show reasonable evidence that citizenship was obtained under false pretenses, then strip his citizenship, which again makes him a foreign national, and dump him in Guantanamo and let the military interrogators have a go at him before his tribunal.

Anyone who prefers he be tried in U.S. civilian courts will obviously have a different opinion.

Before you go messing around with taking away citizenship you should probably have some evidence. We are supposed to represent the good guys. He is a citizen of this country and his rights should only be affected with due process. Do you honestly think he'll walk?

Take away his citizenship then what do you have? A legal resident of the US charged with a crime and taken to an offsite prison for interrogation? What stops the government from taking away your citizenship if you do something un-citizenly?

If we are going to claim to be the good guys, then we should practice that approach. Afford him his day in court, upon conviction and exhaustion of appeals, then maybe you revoke citizenship, or maybe you don't.

No, I don't think he'll walk. If he's tried in civilian courts, he will likely get the same treatment that McVeigh got--confinement in Supermax until he gets the needle. And if that happens, I'll be fine with it, as far as it goes.

But I believe that the desire to treat him as a common criminal betrays a certain fuzziness of thinking--an inability or unwillingness to recognize the situation in which we find ourselves. This same fuzziness of thinki ...

I think it is premature to be making that kind of statement. We don't know this kid isn't some type of common criminal. This kid could hate marathons, or he could just like blowing stuff up. To assume that this is a larger statement about political views and the desire to bring down the United States is jumping to conclusions.

If, this kid is interested in bringing down the US government via violent means, and is conspiring to do so with other parties, then he should probably be tried for treason.

demaL-demaL-yeH:World Traveling Navy Vet: How can we as a nation stop building more jails, reduce the amount of inmates currently in jail, and give criminals pause to think of what will happen when they are caught? Tough question of which I know not the answer.

Three thoughts:1. Ban all private, for-profit prisons. Imprisonment is strictly a government function.2. Legalize, regulate and tax marijuana, then release all nonviolent marijuana offenders.3. remove sentencing guidelines and truth in sentencing laws because they are unconstitutional interference with the judicial branch of government. Judges should be able to exercise judgment, for fark's sake.

/*dusts hands* What's next on your list, squidey?

1. Make extras available based on level of incarceration, the higher the level of security the fewer the extras.2. Not sure what legalizing and regulating marijuana would do, but I would agree with letting go the users that are imprisoned.3. Not sure what you mean regarding the truth in sentencing laws.4. For the hard core I was thinking chain gangs, hard labor, etc. Make the inmates truly work for a living, and making license plates does not constitute work.

demaL-demaL-yeH:Cybernetic: But where would you draw the line? At what point does an act committed on US soil cross the threshold where it is no longer a crime, but instead the action of an enemy combatant?

There is no threshold or line to draw: You're conflating two very different concepts.

A crime is a crime when committed by US persons on US soil. Before "terroris*" got shoehorned into the criminal code, it was easy to see. It's only now that you're confused.

An act of war is an act of war, which is still, fortunately, very well defined in international law.Who constitutes a combatant - and who is a noncombatant - is also defined in international law, as well as who is a saboteur or spy.

The term "act of war" is far more a historical and political term than a legal one. If you have a citiation of international law that specifies what is and is not an act of war, I'd be very interested to see it.

Given that there is already substantial information tying Tamerlan Tsarnaev to radical Islamists, I believe that the Tsarnaev brothers can be considered "unlawful combatants," in that they do not meet the definition for lawful combatants as members of an irregular militia under Article IV of the Geneva Convention. Those criteria are:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;(c) that of carrying arms openly;(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war

They violate all four of those conditions, not the least of which is violating criterion (d) by directly targeting civilians.

As unlawful combatants, they still qualify for humane treatment under the Geneva Convention, but do not have to be treated as prisoners of war. They can be tried by a military tribunal, as validated by the Supreme Court in Ex Parte Quirin in 1942, in which case naturalized citizens were found to have maintained allegiance to a foreign power and renounced or abandoned their US citizenship by their actions on behalf of that power.

Kittypie070:docilej: Anwar al-Awlaki was a US citizen, and we dropped a couple drone bombs on his ass!!

I see, you are pro-traitor, and pro-al Qaeda, in that case.

In the case of an American citizen who turns on our country in an effort to do damage as part of a larger effort and who remains engaged as a major player in that fight no longer enjoys access to the courts or the same rights enjoyed by other US citizens under our Constitution. They become subject to the findings and decisions of our President acting as Commander in Chief to exercise justifiable force in our defense. Anwar al-Awlaki received his due process from the consideration of his status and behavior as a terrorist at war against this nation. I'm sure several wise legal consuls gave the President the best advice they could and that was that the President as Commander in Chief has the authority to order the killing of an unlawful combatant who was once a US citizen who is an ongoing threat to our nation. Had there been no evidence proving al Awlaki's actions, the President would not have considered this much less commited to this.

If you can not comprehend those very simple words then....

Pffftt...please. He was snuffing out a gay ex-lover before he went public with their past of meth-fueled satanic buttsex.

Cybernetic:The term "act of war" is far more a historical and political term than a legal one. If you have a citiation of international law that specifies what is and is not an act of war, I'd be very interested to see it.

Try the UN Charter, then work your way out to the conventions, treaties, and accords that are still in effect. Wiki might help you.

Cybernetic:Given that there is already substantial information tying Tamerlan Tsarnaev to radical Islamists, I believe that the Tsarnaev brothers can be considered "unlawful combatants,"

No, they are not. Association with criminals and acting like a criminal doesn't magically make the criminal a combatant. (And I'm fully aware of the Geneva criteria for combatants, noncombatants, saboteurs, spies, and the like, thankyouverymuch.

NB A foreign power is, by definition, a state actor: What is the identity of this alleged state actor, what territory does it control, who is its chief executive and where is its seat of government?

Unlawful combatant which, thanks to Bush, now gets called "enemy combatant" (a completely different thing altogether). Prior to that deliberate confusion of terms, the two were known to be completely different things.

*straps Debeo Summa Credo to a sturdy chair, carefully assures that he is comfortable and cannot perform flail damage, and commences to feed him a large oak dining table cut into bite-sized chunks, while occasionally hydrating him with adequate quantities of watered down generic beer*

I love how so many people believe that because his rights weren't immediately read to him because they were more interested in determining if he had any more bombs scattered around it means that no one is an American citizen anymore and Obama can launch drone missiles at kindergartens in Missouri.